"Anti-Zionist" Jews, heroes of Palestinian Arab propagandists, are also ANTI-GAY

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jun 25, 2016 5:14 AM GMT

    Once again making us wonder if these anti-Israeli propagandist hate Jews/Israel more than they love or care for their gay brethren.

    http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/2006Nov9.cfm
    With humility and compassion in our hearts we humbly pray that those Jews and all people ensnared by these evils should repent and realize that they are the victims of pernicious propaganda. When returning to Torah and the Divine plan they will find that which they seek, truth and beauty, family and empathy and then and, only then, will they be able to be truly gay, in the real sense of the word. May the Almighty grant that it be so, speedily in our days.

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jun 25, 2016 12:28 PM GMT
    On and on goes their mindless propaganda, with appeal to (false) authority one of their key "weapons" right along with the constant reversal of the scientific method.

    Sure, there are also anti-gay Zionists, but no one conjures them, let alone as if they must be right.

    Whereas Neturei Karta has been referenced even here on RealJock by our resident flunkies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2016 2:37 PM GMT
    Q: Just who is GymFreak who also posts in hidden mode as theantiSock pka theantiCock (mockeries of my screenname theantijock) pka OnTarget?
    A: Just some poster filled with hate who spews ANTI-SEMITIC and HOMOPHOBIC in his RADICAL ISLAMIST rage against RJ


    How do we know this to be true?

    Because GymFreak declared that a child who converted to Christianity, this young gay youth, offspring of Palestinian Terrorist Hamas Founder, should have let his own Muslim family "honor kill" him for being gay. He stated that the 14-year-old kid was a "loser" because he fled his own family to save his young gay life.

    theantijock said on this thread http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4221027
    GymFreak aka theantiCock said
    theantijock said...except that CNN recorded his own "Palestinian" father threatening his own son with death...


    Maybe because "John Calvin" was threatening his own family? He is a sellout loser.


    You call this kid, who left his family home in fear at 14, this kid saving his own life from being killed by his own family, this kid as selling out?

    There is not one good person on this forum, not one good person in this country, not one good person on this planet, not one good person known to God who would read that and not think that you are disgusting.


    Oh Sinnerman where you gonna run to?

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jun 26, 2016 12:25 AM GMT
    Related threads:

    Gay Palestinians
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1061322/?forumpage=4

    Countries that support gays or kill them
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/984797

    Why #Pinkwashing Insults Gays and Hurts Palestinians
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4054588

    "Pinkwashing"- LGBT Conference in Chicago Turns Violent From Anti-Israel Protesters
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums

    Saudi Arabia says it will support human rights as long as they can still kill gay people
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4074318

    Israel Plans Monument to Gays Persecuted by Nazis
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3401610/

    Israelis are ready to follow Ireland's lead and legalize gay marriage
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4069592

    Tel Aviv Pride 2015
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4064516/

    Middle East's biggest LGBT pride parade draws 200,000
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4220173

    Israel is a secular, democratic, state (gay friendly, too)
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3977469

    Vittorio Arrigoni murdered in Gaza by Palestinian terrorists - because he was gay?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1506698

    Hamas Commander, Accused of Gay Sex, Is Killed by His Own
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4188753

    A gay Iranian poet seeks asylum in Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4198759

    Israel holds its first transgender beauty contest
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4205389
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jun 26, 2016 3:41 PM GMT
    AyaTrolLiar> I've....

    Yup, in his mind everything is about him... and this uneducated clever-by-half fool thinks he's a genius.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2016 8:42 PM GMT
    Just like that codyposter. Does anyone for one second really think he gives a flying fuck about Palestinians? I have no doubt that Jewish people care more for Palestinians, even given the conflict, then does that creep tossing flags into a thread about acceptance of gay people in his anti-Semitic tantrum.

    I just looked at his reading list quickly and immediately found this

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4226272/?forumpage=1
    CODY4U saidSecret sex is waaaaaaay hotter. Stay in the closet if you like hot sex. The domestic version of homosexuality is overrated.


    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4225903/ thread on President Obama Announces Designation Of The ‘Stonewall National Monument’ In NYC
    CODY4U saidAwww, what a dishonor.


    So obviously the guy's just fucked up in the head, ranting anti-gay & anti-Semitic. Ick.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jun 30, 2016 2:20 AM GMT
    True, cody4u is as f*cked up as the AyaTrolLiar.
    When the former hijacked a thread about Orlando to be anti-Israel:

    AyaTrolLiar> Good political instincts Cody.

    But what else did he just post?

    CODY4U said
    samslifeinjeddah-palestine.jpg

    ROTFL.
    Yet another reference to "anti-ZIonist" Jews who are anti-gay!

    It is such parodies of themselves that led some people to believe that the AyaTrolLiar was my sock-puppet, a plant in the audience, as if no one could be quite that unintentionally dim (while confusing himself for a genius).
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jun 30, 2016 2:41 PM GMT
    The "solidarity movement" constantly conjures NK, as does Sam, as did "Nimrod" and "GymFreak".
    They NEVER stand up for gay rights in "Palestine" - or elsewhere.
    To the contrary, as part of exuding their hate for Israel, they deny the plight of gay Palestinian Arabs.
    All of which has been reflected on RJ for years.

    Related threads:

    Gay Palestinians
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1061322/?forumpage=4

    Countries that support gays or kill them
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/984797

    Why #Pinkwashing Insults Gays and Hurts Palestinians
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4054588

    "Pinkwashing"- LGBT Conference in Chicago Turns Violent From Anti-Israel Protesters
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums

    Saudi Arabia says it will support human rights as long as they can still kill gay people
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4074318

    Israel Plans Monument to Gays Persecuted by Nazis
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3401610/

    Israelis are ready to follow Ireland's lead and legalize gay marriage
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4069592

    Tel Aviv Pride 2015
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4064516/

    Middle East's biggest LGBT pride parade draws 200,000
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4220173

    A gay Iranian poet seeks asylum in Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4198759

    Israel holds its first transgender beauty contest
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4205389

    Vittorio Arrigoni murdered in Gaza by Palestinian terrorists - because he was gay?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1506698

    Hamas Commander, Accused of Gay Sex, Is Killed by His Own
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4188753

    Nazareth Arab Comes Out As Gay And Pro-Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4330646
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2016 8:02 PM GMT
    I support gay rights and the same time I support justice for Palestinian human rights.

    mwolverine, have you ever look at both sides of the conflict or you just narrow down only focus on religious anti-Zionist Jews?

    Secular anti-Zionist Jew groups:
    Jews for Justice for Palestinians is anti-gay?
    Young Jewish and Proud is anti-gay?
    Jewish Voice for Peace is anti-gay?
    Pinkwashing Israel is anti-gay?

    title-another-jew-supporting-divestment.
    Jewish-Voice-for-Peace-Not-really-e14339
    sue-july-19-2014.jpg


    How do you know any of them "religious and secular" anti-ZIonist Jews are anti-gay?
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 01, 2016 6:41 AM GMT
    Let us know if any of those groups ever stood up and championed the rights of gays in "Palestine".

    Oh, that's right, you don't either.

    Gay Palestinians
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1061322/?forumpage=2
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 01, 2016 8:16 AM GMT
    JTheM said
    Has Zionist hero Benjamin Netanyahu ever championed gay rights in Palestine? icon_rolleyes.gif
    Oh yes, only (at most) in what they call "Israel".

    Typical idiocy. Why should the Israeli Prime Minister champion gay rights in any other country?
    The question is why do Palestinian Arabs on RJ lie about the state of gay rights in "Palestine" as part of their incessant "campaign against Israel"?

    Because they hate Jews/Israel more than they care for their gay brethren.

    Gay Palestinians
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1061322/?forumpage=2
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2016 5:35 PM GMT
    LGBT community in Palestine has a long way to go, since they are under the Israel's brutal occupation. Sure there are religious Palestinians that are backward and uneducated on Gay rights, that doesn't means all Palestinians are the same and dislike gay people. LGBT in Palestine (West Bank) is legal since 1951. Gaza Strip is under Hamas rule, they are using the British Mandate Criminal Code Ordinance, No. 74 of 1936. Gay sex is illegal, but Lesbian is not in Gaza. Yes there are some gay couples living in Gaza.

    http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/palestinian-gay-couple-killed-israeli-gaza-bombing201112/ 4tvszk.jpg

    Yes I hate Israeli government, but not the country or the land itself.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 01, 2016 9:22 PM GMT
    JPGC2007 said
    LGBT community in Palestine has a long way to go, since they are under the Israel's brutal occupation. Sure there are religious Palestinians that are backward and uneducated on Gay rights, that doesn't means all Palestinians are the same and dislike gay people. LGBT in Palestine (West Bank) is legal since 1951. Gaza Strip is under Hamas rule, they are using the British Mandate Criminal Code Ordinance, No. 74 of 1936. Gay sex is illegal, but Lesbian is not in Gaza. Yes there are some gay couples living in Gaza.

    There he goes again. It's pathological:

    There are ZERO legal protections for LGBTs in "Palestine" (the Trans/Jordanian negation of earlier law in 1951 had zero impact on gays).

    Gays in the PA and under Hamas (Area A & B) aren't being persecuted by "religious Palestinians that are backward and uneducated" but by their own families and the police.

    Which is not the case in Area C (under Israeli rule), where they are protected from the Palestinian Arab authorities and their families.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2016 10:07 PM GMT
    I consider the Area A is under Israeli rule. Who give the Palestinian Authority order? Israel. Who collect tax money from the Palestinians living in Area A? Israel. Even if Area A is under "Palestinian Authority", but Israel can control Area A anytime. Even Israeli soldiers are in Area A right now. Do you think Israel follows the rules?

    "LGBT community in Palestine has a long way to go, since they are under the Israel's brutal occupation."

    I don't understand why would someone justifying Israel's occuaption? Do you think it is a good thing to occupy people and their lands?
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 02, 2016 2:16 AM GMT
    JPGC2007 said
    I consider the Area A is under Israeli rule.

    ...I don't understand why would someone justifying Israel's occuaption? Do you think it is a good thing to occupy people and their lands?

    That's nice, but as noted in the thread where this is on topic (and which you are avoiding), the PA (and Hamas) have no problem passing legislation and enforcing it.

    It is not Israeli soldiers who are persecuting gays in Areas A & B.
    It is the Palestinian Authority Police and the Hamas Police.

    Gay Palestinians
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1061322/?forumpage=2


    An "occupation" is what happens between war and peace. Unfortunately the Arab parties were quick to wars (which they started and lost), but have been glacially slow to make peace.

    Let's talk peace: The two-state solution
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4180210

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2016 5:01 AM GMT
    Ravi1985 saidThe settlements are a bad idea.


    I agree! If Israelis want to live in Palestine, then they will have to share land, not taking land from the Palestinian people.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-yes-to-jews-no-to-settlers-in-our-state/
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 02, 2016 6:54 AM GMT
    Jewish villages in Judea & Samaria, "settlements", are a red herring.

    First, before 1967 there were none such (all Jews were ethnically cleansed from the areas conquered by invading Arab armies in 1948 ) and the Arab parties - all of them! - refused to make peace with Israel. Thus we see they are not the source of trouble but a symptom of it.

    Second, most of them (certainly the larger ones) are close to the 1949 Armistice line and could be incorporated into Israel in territorial exchanges.

    What would make sense is for Israel to exchange Arab villages on its side of the Armistice line for Jewish villages on what was the Jordanian side of the border.

    Except that ~90% of Israeli Arabs - despite all the propaganda noise of "Apartheid" - want their villages to remain in Israel (rather than be ceded to a future Palestinian Arab state).

    Thus a different compromise will need to be worked out - indeed has repeatedly been worked out, from Barak, to Clinton to Olmert.

    The kicker? The anti-Israel trolls are against all of them.

    Let's talk peace: The two-state solution
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4180210
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 02, 2016 1:38 PM GMT
    As usual, the AyaTrolLiar can't actually engage the arguments, just tries to slink around them and play word games.

    Jewish villages in Judea & Samaria, "settlements", are a red herring.

    1. Before 1967 there were none such (all Jews were ethnically cleansed from the areas conquered by invading Arab armies in 1948 ) and the Arab parties - all of them! - refused to make peace with Israel. Thus we see they are not the source of trouble but a symptom of it.


    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    2. Most are built on land owned by Jews before 1948 or legally purchased after 1967. Note that the first law passed by the Palestinian Authority in the mid-1990s was to make land sales to Jews illegal - under penalty of death to both the seller and the buyer. Talk about racist/apartheid laws, eh? This law shows us the history of Jews PURCHASING (not "stealing") land from willing Arab sellers.

    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    3. The Palestine Mandate, a trust document, granted Jews the right to live west of the Jordan River and no subsequent legal document has (or can) abridge that absent consent of the parties.

    [this is a new point]


    4. Most of them (certainly the larger ones) are close to the 1949 Armistice line and could be incorporated into Israel in territorial exchanges.

    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    5. What would make sense is for Israel to exchange Arab villages on its side of the Armistice line for Jewish villages on what was the Jordanian side of the border.

    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    6. Except that ~90% of Israeli Arabs - despite all the propaganda noise of "Apartheid" - want their villages to remain in Israel (rather than be ceded to a future Palestinian Arab state).

    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    7. Thus a different compromise will need to be worked out - indeed has repeatedly been worked out, from Barak, to Clinton to Olmert.

    AyaTrolLiar> ?



    8. The kicker? The anti-Israel trolls are against all of them.

    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    and early 20th century Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491

    Arabs (like Arabic) NOT indigenous to Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4019405

    The Palestine Paradox
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2652202

    1947-1948: Arabs reject compromise and attack Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691

    The Emergence of Palestinian Arab Nationalism in the Mid-to-Late 20th Century
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4193729

    Let's talk peace: The two-state solution
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4180210
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 02, 2016 4:38 PM GMT
    As usual, the AyaTrolLiar can't actually engage the arguments, just tries to slink around them and play word games - dealt with here.

    Jewish villages in Judea & Samaria, "settlements", are a red herring.

    1. Before 1967 there were none such (all Jews were ethnically cleansed from the areas conquered by invading Arab armies in 1948 ) and the Arab parties - all of them! - refused to make peace with Israel. Thus we see they are not the source of trouble but a symptom of it.


    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    2. Most are built on land owned by Jews before 1948 or legally purchased after 1967. Note that the first law passed by the Palestinian Authority in the mid-1990s was to make land sales to Jews illegal - under penalty of death to both the seller and the buyer. Talk about racist/apartheid laws, eh? This law shows us the history of Jews PURCHASING (not "stealing") land from willing Arab sellers.

    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    3. The Palestine Mandate, a trust document, granted Jews the right to live west of the Jordan River and no subsequent legal document has (or can) abridge that absent consent of the parties.

    AyaTrolLiar> The League of Nations (which no longer even exists) determines which religious or ethnic groups have a right to live on a given area of land?

    It proclaimed a trust territory, with the UN being it's legal successor.
    The endurance of a trust is not dependent on the trustee, anyhow.

    Contemplate the silliness: AyaTrolLiar Founcer/JTheM pretends to be motivated by "international law", but only when he thinks it supports him. His "warped methodology" is to selectively harvest what little he can twist to suit his "model" built on hate, while ignoring the bulk of the "inconvenient" data.


    4. Most of them (certainly the larger ones) are close to the 1949 Armistice line and could be incorporated into Israel in territorial exchanges.

    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    5. What would make sense is for Israel to exchange Arab villages on its side of the Armistice line for Jewish villages on what was the Jordanian side of the border.

    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    6. Except that ~90% of Israeli Arabs - despite all the propaganda noise of "Apartheid" - want their villages to remain in Israel (rather than be ceded to a future Palestinian Arab state).

    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    7. Thus a different compromise will need to be worked out - indeed has repeatedly been worked out, from Barak, to Clinton to Olmert.

    AyaTrolLiar> ?


    8. The kicker? The anti-Israel hatist racists are against all of them.

    AyaTrolLiar> ?
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 02, 2016 7:30 PM GMT
    As usual, the AyaTrolLiar can't actually engage the arguments, just tries to slink around them and play word games - dealt with here.

    "Palestine" is NOT a "country", NOT an independent state.
    Nothing I said implied it did, but the pathological one can't let it go and the best he can do is try to twist.


    "Palestine" can NOT be "occupied" (see Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).

    AyaTrolLiar> " that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); AND that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties."

    Note "AND", not "or". Both conditions must be met.
    Yet "Palestine" is NOT a High Contracting Party to the convention.

    Nonetheless that is covered by a different paragraph of Article 2:

    || Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

    As usual, the ignorant idiot doesn't even understand what is being discussed and shoots off in all the wrong directions.

    Let's look at another section of Article 2:

    || The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

    Yet "Palestine", not being a State, cannot be a "High Contracting Party" to the Convention.

    While the Convention overall applies, the sections referencing "occupation" do NOT hold for this conflict.


    GymFreak> territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

    That would exclude Gaza (from which the Israeli army withdrew in 2005) and Area A in Judea & Samaria which is under PA security control (and where the majority of the Palestinian Arabs reside).


    GymFreak> The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan.

    At the time, they were considered "Occupied JORDAN".
    Jordan only rescinded its claim in 1988.
    There is no legal mechanism by which they could magically revert to being "Occupied 'Palestine'".
    Which they never were previously, the Arab parties having violently rejected the 1947 UN partition compromise.


    Note that between 1948-1967 this territory was NOT considered to be "occupied" by Jordan.
    Jordanians could move from east of the River to its west with no one claiming they were "illegal settlers".

    11r7kes.jpg
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 02, 2016 7:33 PM GMT
    Jewish villages in Judea & Samaria, "settlements", are a red herring.

    1. Before 1967 there were none such (all Jews were ethnically cleansed from the areas conquered by invading Arab armies in 1948 ) and the Arab parties - all of them! - refused to make peace with Israel. Thus we see they are not the source of trouble but a symptom of it.


    AyaTrolLiar> ???


    2. Most are built on land owned by Jews before 1948 or legally purchased after 1967. Note that the first law passed by the Palestinian Authority in the mid-1990s was to make land sales to Jews illegal - under penalty of death to both the seller and the buyer. Talk about racist/apartheid laws, eh? This law shows us the history of Jews PURCHASING (not "stealing") land from willing Arab sellers.

    AyaTrolLiar> ???


    3. The Palestine Mandate, a trust document, granted Jews the right to live west of the Jordan River and no subsequent legal document has (or can) abridge that absent consent of the parties.

    AyaTrolLiar> The League of Nations (which no longer even exists) determines which religious or ethnic groups have a right to live on a given area of land?

    It proclaimed a trust territory, with the UN being it's legal successor.
    The endurance of a trust is not dependent on the trustee, anyhow.

    Contemplate the silliness: AyaTrolLiar Founcer/JTheM pretends to be motivated by "international law", but only when he thinks it supports him. His "warped methodology" is to selectively harvest what little he can twist to suit his "model" built on hate, while ignoring the bulk of the "inconvenient" data.


    4. Most of them (certainly the larger ones) are close to the 1949 Armistice line and could be incorporated into Israel in territorial exchanges.

    AyaTrolLiar> ???


    5. What would make sense is for Israel to exchange Arab villages on its side of the Armistice line for Jewish villages on what was the Jordanian side of the border.

    AyaTrolLiar> [he's not looking to make sense but to "punish" the Jews.]


    6. Except that ~90% of Israeli Arabs - despite all the propaganda noise of "Apartheid" - want their villages to remain in Israel (rather than be ceded to a future Palestinian Arab state).

    AyaTrolLiar> ???


    7. Thus a different compromise will need to be worked out - indeed has repeatedly been worked out, from Barak, to Clinton to Olmert.

    AyaTrolLiar> ???


    8. The kicker? The anti-Israel hatist racists are against all of them.

    AyaTrolLiar> ???
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2016 8:43 PM GMT
    JTheM saidAs you choked on the settlements issue, I'll give you some wiggle room and see if you can start off better on C1:

    Very Ugly Pervert> Why should the Israeli Prime Minister champion gay rights in any other country?

    C1. So you admit Palestine is a "country"?

    VUP [elsewhere of course]> No, "Palestine" is not a country

    Yet you just admitted it was. Moreover, the world agrees:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine

    C2: So Palestine is not just a "country" [see C1] but is under "occupation"?

    VUP> it can't be "occupied" (see Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).

    Your ignorance appals.
    The highest judicial body in the world:

    || [T]he Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. (...) Thethe Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. (...) The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.

    The World Court is hardly alone. The Israeli High Court (which this fool has praised in the past), the High-Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the UN Security Council, and the US State Department are all in agreement.

    So much for that fabricated "controversy".


    Exactly! That is what really bothering me about mwolverine, living in denial.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 02, 2016 8:55 PM GMT
    Jewish villages in Judea & Samaria, "settlements", are a red herring.

    1. Before 1967 there were none such (all Jews were ethnically cleansed from the areas conquered by invading Arab armies in 1948 ) and the Arab parties - all of them! - refused to make peace with Israel. Thus we see they are not the source of trouble but a symptom of it.


    AyaTrolLiar> ???


    2. Most are built on land owned by Jews before 1948 or legally purchased after 1967. Note that the first law passed by the Palestinian Authority in the mid-1990s was to make land sales to Jews illegal - under penalty of death to both the seller and the buyer. Talk about racist/apartheid laws, eh? This law shows us the history of Jews PURCHASING (not "stealing") land from willing Arab sellers.

    AyaTrolLiar> ???


    3. The Palestine Mandate, a trust document, granted Jews the right to live west of the Jordan River and no subsequent legal document has (or can) abridge that absent consent of the parties.

    AyaTrolLiar> The League of Nations (which no longer even exists) determines which religious or ethnic groups have a right to live on a given area of land?

    It proclaimed a trust territory, with the UN being it's legal successor.
    The endurance of a trust is not dependent on the trustee, anyhow.

    Contemplate the silliness: AyaTrolLiar Founcer/JTheM pretends to be motivated by "international law", but only when he thinks it supports him. His "warped methodology" is to selectively harvest what little he can twist to suit his "model" built on hate, while ignoring the bulk of the "inconvenient" data.


    4. Most of them (certainly the larger ones) are close to the 1949 Armistice line and could be incorporated into Israel in territorial exchanges.

    AyaTrolLiar> ???


    5. What would make sense is for Israel to exchange Arab villages on its side of the Armistice line for Jewish villages on what was the Jordanian side of the border.

    AyaTrolLiar> [he's not looking to make sense but to "punish" the Jews.]


    6. Except that ~90% of Israeli Arabs - despite all the propaganda noise of "Apartheid" - want their villages to remain in Israel (rather than be ceded to a future Palestinian Arab state).

    AyaTrolLiar> ???


    7. Thus a different compromise will need to be worked out - indeed has repeatedly been worked out, from Barak, to Clinton to Olmert.

    AyaTrolLiar> ???


    8. The kicker? The anti-Israel hatist racists are against all of them.

    AyaTrolLiar> ???
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 02, 2016 8:59 PM GMT
    As usual, the AyaTrolLiar can't actually engage the arguments, just tries to slink around them and play word games - dealt with here.

    9. "Palestine" is NOT a "country", NOT an independent state.
    Nothing I said implied it did, but the pathological one can't let it go and the best he can do is try to twist.


    AyaTrolLiar> [finally shut up about that]


    "10. Palestine" can NOT be "occupied" (see Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).

    AyaTrolLiar> " that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); AND that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties."

    10A. Note "AND", not "or". Both conditions must be met.
    Yet "Palestine" is NOT a High Contracting Party to the convention.


    AyaTrolLiar> [rebabbles his incoherent post, still doesn't get it.]


    10B. Nonetheless that is covered by a different paragraph of Article 2 (no one claimed the entire convention didn't apply, anyhow, that's the usual AyaTrolLiar lack of nuance atop his ignorance):

    || Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

    AyaTrolLiar> [still lost]

    As usual, the ignorant idiot doesn't even understand what is being discussed and shoots off in all the wrong directions, getting even that wrong..


    10C. Let's look at another section of Article 2 - the one that references "occupation":

    || The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

    Yet "Palestine", not being a State, cannot be a "High Contracting Party" to the Convention.

    While the Convention overall applies, the sections referencing "occupation" do NOT hold for this conflict.

    AyaTrolLiar> [still doesn't have a clue, stuck on the short bus]


    GymFreak> territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

    11. That would exclude Gaza (from which the Israeli army withdrew in 2005) and Area A in Judea & Samaria which is under PA security control (and where the majority of the Palestinian Arabs reside).


    GymFreak> The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan.

    11. At the time, they were considered "Occupied JORDAN".
    Jordan only rescinded its claim in 1988.
    There is no legal mechanism by which they could magically revert to being "Occupied 'Palestine'".
    Which they never were previously, the Arab parties having violently rejected the 1947 UN partition compromise.


    AyaTrolLiar> ?

    11B. Note that between 1948-1967 this territory was NOT considered to be "occupied" by Jordan.
    Jordanians could move from east of the River to its west with no one claiming they were "illegal settlers".


    AyaTrolLiar> barely anyone recognized the Jordanian occupation

    No one described the Jordanian rule as an "occupation".
    No one referenced the territory as "Occupied Palestinian Territories".

    11r7kes.jpg
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5587

    Jul 03, 2016 2:55 PM GMT
    Unfortunate that our resident flunky doesn't realize that the reference to "Palestine" above is not an independent Arab Palestine but to the former Mandate Palestine.

    Bet he can't give us the sentence before or after his image, once again highlighting his warped methodology: he went looking for "data" to support his preconceived, biased and false notions (masqueraded as "conclusions" or a "model"), found something (never mind that he didn't even know what it was) and ran with it.

    Surely he can find something not just better but real? Surely over the 20 year span of "occupation" of the "Palestinian territories" by Egypt and Trans/Jordan, there must have been some mention of this at the United Nations? Fatah formed in 1959 and the PLO in 1964... surely their charters referenced their goal of ending these "illegal" "occupations"?